Starbucks closed thousands of stores Tuesday and asked employees to talk about when they noticed their racial identity, discuss what unconscious bias is and watch videos in which people of color describe feeling unwelcome in stores. For those of you who don't read the links: you can train off-the-shelf neural networks to recognize faces (or other bits of people and objects) in video clips.You can then use the trained network to edit them, replacing one person in a video with a synthetic version of someone else.
- Web chat rooms fack
- boston love nest launched new dating service hybrid announced
- valenti dating site
- 21 and no dating experience
- younger men dating older women why
- updating quasi newton matrices with limited storage
Being able to train a network to recognize the cadences of our target's intonation, though, and then to modulate a different speaker's words so they come out sounding right takes it into a whole new level of plausibility for human viewers, because we give credence to sensory inputs based on how consistent they are with our other senses.
We need AI to get the lip-sync right, in other words, before today's simplistic AI-generated video porn turns toxic.
What I'm not seeing yet is the obvious application of this sort of deep learning to speech synthesis.
It's all very well to fake up a video of David Cameron fucking a goat, but without the bleating and mindless quackspeak it's pretty obvious that it's a fake.
Once we combine procedural video generation with toolkits for promoting social media addiction and good old web tracking, we're on course to all be parasitized by our own AI stalkers, helpfully generating video and other content tweaked iteratively to compel us to pay attention, whether due to arousal, disgust, happiness, fear, or whatever.
It doesn't matter how insanely CPU-intensive this sort of application is: some dipshit with no social insight and an underdeveloped sense of morality is going to deploy it in an attempt to monetize us.
In the 1970s, however, very few were even aware of its existence, even though it had been around for almost a century.
If you have tried solving this puzzle, you can confirm that your first attempts usually involve sketching lines inside the imaginary square.
Even though they weren’t instructed to restrain themselves from considering such a solution, they were unable to “see” the white space beyond the square’s boundaries.
Only 20 percent managed to break out of the illusory confinement and continue their lines in the white space surrounding the dots.
But with procedural speech mimicry on top of face/body substitution, video evidence turns questionable.